The Instigator
heart_of_the_matter
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,558 times Debate No: 8106
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I welcome the readers and my opponent.

Resolved: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.

Even though society as a whole has been conditioned to accept that fluoride is "good for us", that is in fact not the case. Have you ever thought about how fluoride "protects" our teeth? Does it not do this by "killing" the bacteria that are on our teeth? So how does it "kill" these bacteria? Well, it must be "poisonous" to enable it to "kill"...and it is...and if fluoride is ingested it doesn't magically become "unpoisonous"...it is still poisonous, and is therefore harmful. That is why it should not purposefully be added to anyone's drinking water. Pro will attempt to affirm this resolution and offers the following points of consideration for the readers:

1. Fluoride is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Even on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to "contact a poison control center immediately" if you swallow your toothpaste.

2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda. Originally this poisonous by-product (fluoride) involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today. Through the use of propaganda, fluoride has been made to seem to be desirable, rather than treated as the poisonous by-product that it is.

http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f5]

3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by the action of cariogenic substances which release acids which then attack tooth enamel.

http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f6]

4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY to have this fluoride added to their water. People are being forced to pay for poison to be added to their water! This is yet another reason that it should not be added to drinking water!

5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount.

http://www.nofluoride.com... [2nd red triangle in points]

I now look forward to my opponent's response.
feverish

Con

Thanks to my opponent.

"Fluoride should not be added to drinking water" is an absolute statement.
My opponent's position therefore seems to be (and his initial post appears to back this up) that fluoride should not be added to drinking water under any circumstances and that if it is currently being added then this should be stopped.

My position is simple: In some cases (notably, areas where people aren't getting enough ) then fluoride should in fact be added.

I will examine my opponent's arguments and sources first.

"1. Fluoride is poisonous."

All substances are poisonous, including all food, drink and medicines.

Toxicity is determined by dose.

The amount of salt you would find in most salt cellars (dispensers) would be more than enough to kill you.
Even water itself, the very substance that anti-fluoridation campaigners seek to protect the purity of, will kill you if you drink too much.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

"on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to "contact a poison control center immediately" if you swallow your toothpaste."

It doesn't say that on my tube of Colgate Total.

"2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda."

On the contrary, the use of fluoride in drinking water has been made to seem desirable by science and only opposed by propaganda. If you define 'propaganda' then we could discuss this in more detail.

"3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay."

Obviously not. Teeth decay for many reasons and were decaying long before fluoride was ever added to water, however fluoride absolutely does protect against tooth decay, as the evidence in my sources will prove.

"4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY..."

I guess the argument to this point hinges on whether you are pro universal health care. I am and firmly believe that there is enough evidence to show that fluoride in the water saves taxpayers enough in free dental care for kids from low income families.

"5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount."

My opponent is absolutely correct that we need proper evidence of overall fluoride intake, if people, especially young children are definitely getting enough fluoride then there is no need to give them more, but this is often not the case as I will prove below. The quote with statistic does not cite any scientific source, merely makes unfounded claims.

My opponent's sources are both websites set up by anti-fluoridation campaigners and do not express a balanced view, I urge readers to examine them and compare them to my sources below which are scientific or journalism based.

"To its critics ... the sure benefits .. may pale in comparison to the uncertain consequences...To its advocates, fluoridation is one of the most effective ways of achieving equality in dental health...no-one seriously doubts that fluoridation does stop decay."
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

"Fluoride can greatly help dental health by strengthening the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to tooth decay. It also reduces the amount of acid that the bacteria on your teeth produce...Fluoride is found naturally in ... water supplies, and is also added to some.... One part of fluoride for every million parts of water (1 ppm) has been shown to have the best effect.

All water contains some fluoride."
http://www.dentalhealth.org.uk...

Can't believe I am out of space already, not used to this word limit.
Resolution negated.
Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I thank my opponent for his well thought out rebuttal. I will now elaborate on some points (due to word limit Pro will attempt to highlight the most relevant points and ideas):

To my statement that "Fluoride is poisonous", my opponent responds that "Everything is poisonous". I would agree with my opponent's point in general, but would like to make a critical distinction. Those things that are commonly known as "poisonous" are those things in which a small amount is harmful if exposed to it. For example a snake's venom is known as "poisonous" because a small amount of it is harmful to a person. In relation to fluoride 1 ppm (1 part per million) is the level where it may be safe to ingest fluoride. Fluoride therefore fits into the category of "poisonous".

As far as my opponent's toothpaste (Colgate) it must not have fluoride in it because: "As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry the following poison warning: WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately." It says it on my tube of Crest. (Which tastes better by the way)

Source for 2 points above: http://en.wikipedia.org...
----
Propaganda:As far as a definition per the request of my opponent I will use this:
http://www.awaywolf.com...

Fluoride's popularity has been conceived in propaganda and it is still sustained by propaganda. For example the American Dental Association, bought the domain name "www.fluoridealert.com" and "www.fluoridealert.net" to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation opponents' website, http://www.fluoridealert.org.... Instead, with a slip of a "dot com," unsuspecting web surfers are tricked to the American Dental Association's pro-fluoridation information. Go ahead and try it for yourself! Pro will hopefully get an opportunity to expound more on this, as I think it is a key to understanding why water fluoridation has been accepted at all, when it should not be.
----
To my statement "A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay."

My opponent replies "Obviously not". Which should be sufficient to establish point 4.
But a further explanation is offered of things that will possibly prevent cavities, in which he mentions fluoride. The thing in question however, is if it is worth it to ingest poison in order to possibly prevent cavities.

As a cross examination type question I would ask my opponent if he agrees with this statement:
"The evidence is clear that people don't need to CONSUME fluoride to reap its benefits: They just need the powerful agent to come into contact with their teeth."
----
Costs: I would say that this is more of a tangential point, but as a second cross examination question I would like to ask my opponent if he agrees with this statement:
"It is obvious that adding fluoride to water is being done by people who are on the government's payroll."
----
My opponent stated that "My opponent's sources are both websites set up by anti-fluoridation campaigners and do not express a balanced view"

(1st source) Apologies first of all for not including for the reader to click on "Layman's Guide", this site cites it's sources well I believe, interviewing and getting information from reliable sources, and I am willing to let the readers judge for themselves of its worthiness.

(2nd source) The part that was quoted was the part by a "Pro-fluoride" group (the American Dental Association). PRO was EVEN using their information as the standard, as there is not even a need to use contrary evidence from an "anti-fluoride" group, which might say something like we are already getting 500% more fluoride in our regular diet, when the 300% more than we need (as stated by the ADA) is sufficient to prove the point.
feverish

Con

Thanks.

My opponent agrees that all substances are poisonous but then suggests that we only commonly refer to substances as "poisonous" if a small dose kills you.
1 ppm is not a dosage at all but a safe level to add the substance to water.

"The currently accepted estimate for the minimum lethal dose of fluoride is 5 mg/kg (i.e. 5 milligrams of fluoride for each kilogram of bodyweight)." http://www.fluoridealert.org....

So 250 mg could possibly kill a 50 kilogram (110 lb) adolescent. Assuming 1 ppm this youngster would have to drink 250 litres (by my maths) of fluoridated water to ingest a fatal dose of fluoride. As water itself can be lethal at a dose of under 10 litres (as proved by my water-intoxication sources in the first round) and no one is calling water poisonous, it is ludicrous to suggest that fluoridated water is "poisonous" as defined by my opponent.

My Colgate does indeed contain Fluoride, so I guess UK government is a little less strict on these warnings than US.
This though is the same kind of warning as the "choking hazard" you find on plastic packaging. If used inappropriately toothpaste could be harmful, kids should certainly not eat it as candy (it's way too expensive for one thing) but neither should they eat vitamin supplements as sweets.

My opponent's definition for propaganda is not from a recognised dictionary, but is again from an anti-fluoridation website. If my opponent starts to use sources other than Wikipedia and anti-fluoride propaganda, then I may begin to respond to the points they raise. (If there's space!)

My opponent asks "if it is worth it to ingest poison in order to possibly prevent cavities."

I have shown that my opponent's use of the word poison is unjustified here.
My point was that while lack of fluoride does not lead to tooth decay, the addition of it certainly does protect against tooth decay, my opponent seems unwilling to address this point directly, he should either refute it or concede it as fact.

Pro asks if I agree with this statement: ""The evidence is clear that people don't need to CONSUME fluoride to reap its benefits: They just need the powerful agent to come into contact with their teeth."

My opponent seems here to be agreeing that people "need" fluoride to "come into contact with their teeth" to have healthy teeth which pretty much negates most of his other points.
While I can see that a mouthwash would be effective, it is less so than applying direct to the teeth by brushing and harder to enforce as well. Many low-income families can't afford toothpaste and brushes, let alone mouthwash, plus you try getting a five-year old to rinse effectively with mouthwash, it's not easy in my experience!

"It is obvious that adding fluoride to water is being done by people who are on the government's payroll."

Agreed.

I have already discussed the biased nature of my opponent's sources. Please compare them with independent journalistic and recognised scientific sources to see the disparity.
The "layman's guide" in the first source confuses the issue greatly by spending the first few pages discussing the dangers of separate compounds such as hydrofluoric acid.
The second source claims: "Respected Medical Professionals and Scientists are warning of long-term health consequences." just below this there is a link to a report by a thirteen year-old student. Hardly a respected professional opinion.

The specific quote in question: "Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount." is not from the ADA. The RDA is from the ADA (if that makes sense) but the 300% figure is not sourced.

My opponent still needs to address several points I made in the previous round but I don't have the space to make any new ones.

Main point: Fluoride aids dental health and helps prevent tooth decay.

Thanks.
Con.
Debate Round No. 2
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I thank my opponent and the readers.
-----
POISON:
PRO sees this debate as coming down to simply pointing out to the readers different DISTINCTIONS. PRO would argue that there is a world of difference between what is considered "Poison" and what is not. It is common sense to know that poison does something destructive and harmful. Water doesn't do this (except in freak cases)(like CON is trying to use), that is why it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that water is NOT poisonous. Fluoride on the other hand causes destructive things: (from source #1- Rd. 1)(but actually every single source from PRO also shows this) things like: "hypersalivation, vomiting, and diarrhea...multiorgan failure. Central vasomotor depression...direct cardiotoxicity also may occur...respiratory paralysis, dysrhythmia, or cardiac failure."

Summary: It is a given that: Fluoride is poison, water is not.
-----
PROPAGANDA:
PRO would have liked to have had more space to elaborate on the history of how fluoride came into favor, but due to the need to focus on the most relevant points in the debate PRO is not able to go into very much detail. BUT PRO has shown that there is still deception actually taking place (by showing the website misdirection in Rd. 2).

Summary: It is a given that: Propaganda has made fluoride seem good, but has "lead people away" from understanding the dangers associated with it.
-----
PROPER USE OF FLUORIDE:
CON said: My opponent seems here to be agreeing that people "need" fluoride to "come into contact with their teeth" to have healthy teeth which pretty much negates most of his other points.

That is not the case, it doesn't negate PRO's points because: PRO can and will concede that fluoride may prevent cavities. BUT there is another important DISTINCTION that needs to be made. To summarize: Fluoride in toothpaste = good. Fluoride in water = BAD. The resolution in question deals with drinking water (ingested), which is much different than toothpaste (spit out).

Summary: It is a given that: Water is ingested, toothpaste is not.
-----
WASTE OF MONEY:
"It is obvious that adding fluoride to water is being done by people who are on the government's payroll."
Agreed. (by CON). Because fluoride is poisonous (Shown by Pt. 1), and because there is already sufficient (or rather too much - 300%) fluoride in people's diets (Shown by Pt. 5) therefore it is a TOTAL waste of money to add fluoride to drinking water.

Summary: It is a given that: Taxpayer money could be used for something better than funding something which harms people's health.
-----
TOO MUCH FLUORIDE ALREADY:
CON seems to take issue with the source used by PRO, but in Rd. 2 doesn't cite a source of his own but rather says "Please compare them with independent journalistic and recognised scientific sources to see the disparity." PRO at least posted a source that backs up the claim made. The source seems reliable and the claim made is reasonable. It is not like something outrageous was asserted, just a simple claim that we already get sufficient (too much) fluoride in our diets regularly. But here is another source about it:
http://www.fluoridation.com...

Summary: It is a given that: There is no need to add fluoride to water, because there is already too much fluoride in our diets already naturally.
-----
Main Point: PRO now comes to the point of making the MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION OF ALL!: It doesn't matter if fluoride does help prevent tooth decay, because the whole issue of this debate is about it's poisonous nature. Specifically in the resolution "drinking water" is clearly stated. The debate is concerning drinking water and keeping it safe (not about cavities).

PRO would urge the readers to CAREFULLY consider the IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS that have been made and see how the case for PRO actually is correct. I thank the readers and my opponent and would urge a vote for PRO.

AFFIRMED: "Fluoride should not be added to drinking water."
feverish

Con

Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate.
Thanks to readers who have made it this far.

I think the use of emotive terms like "poison" and "propaganda" could potentially skew this debate in many reader's eyes and I will again prove that these words are being inappropriately used by my opponent.

POISON: My opponent has accepted that all substances are potentially poisonous as per the first rule of toxicity (dose determines effect) he then attempts to make distinctions (based on dosage required for lethal effect) to say that: "Fluoride is poison, water is not."
However this debate is not about whether fluoride itself is "poisonous" but whether it should be added to water.

At a level of 1ppm, fluoridated water is not remotely "poisonous" as proved in my last round.

Also as all water contains fluoride and my opponent states that water is not "poison" he must accept this fact.

--
PROPAGANDA: This is a very subjective term, the definition supplied by my opponent is so broad it includes:

"the spreading of ... information ... for the purpose of helping ... a cause...and ... facts ... spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause"

I can't really object to this definition but I think using the term 'propaganda' with it's sinister connotations is deliberately misleading.

--
PROPER USE: My opponent grudgingly concedes "that fluoride may prevent cavities." He has to because it is a fact that it does.
He says: "Fluoride in toothpaste = good. Fluoride in water = BAD" although some fluoride is of course swallowed when you brush your teeth with a fluoride toothpaste.

I am happy that my daughter is growing up in one of the few parts of England where the water supply is fluoridated.

" 'Manchester and Birmingham have much the same demographics. Manchester is not fluoridated, while Birmingham has had fluoridation for 40 years — and the level of caries (tooth decay) in children in Manchester is twice that in Birmingham.
'That has to be due to water fluoridation.'
Prof Davies points out that if fluoride is as dangerous as its detractors claim, there would be a marked rise in cancers where it's added to water."
http://www.thesun.co.uk...

--
WASTE OF MONEY: As I have already pointed out, the reduction in NHS dental costs for children in areas with fluoridated water supplies makes this policy excellent value for money. My opponent does not refute this but continues to use his "poisonous" argument.

--
TOO MUCH FLUORIDE ALREADY / OPPONENT'S SOURCES:

When I said: "Please compare them with independent journalistic and recognised scientific sources to see the disparity." I was of course referring to the sources posted by myself, sorry if I did not make this clear.
The issue I had was not so much with the statistic itself but with my opponent's suggestion that the statistic: "we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount" actually came from the ADA themselves which of course it doesn't.
Throughout this debate my opponent has used anti-fluoridation websites as his sources, the only non-biased link he has posted is to Wikipedia. In contrast all my sources have been from journalism or science sites.

For a real scientific study on Fluoride intake which actually shows kids in non-fluoridated areas ingesting the most fluoride see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

--
The best people to talk to about dental health are dentists. Dentists support fluoridation:

http://www.edinburghdentist.co.uk...
http://www.nelm.nhs.uk...

Fluoride aids dental health and helps prevent tooth decay, for this reason it should be added to water supplies in areas where children do not get enough fluoride at a level of 1ppm in line with current guidelines.

Resolution negated.
Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PhreedomPhan 7 years ago
PhreedomPhan
Hi Feverish,
Sorry! I hadn't read your profile so I didn't know you were a decrepit old Englishman of 30. Still, I think most of those voting in your favor probably fit my description of young Americans.

When flourides were first introduced into our water, I recall no claims matching heart's that it killed bacteria. It was said the flourides combined with tooth enamel to harden it. I haven't studied the issue, but I do recall reading claims that it also hardened bones and could lead to greater brittleness in old age.

Regardless, whether it is beneficial or not, the government has no business prescribing it. I know some favor it because, as you, they see a benefit. But in my 67 years (I lied about my birthdate), I've watched as our Constitution has been shredded and made a mockery. It's happened because so many people are ready to wink at attacks on it if they think there is some benefit--maybe just to themselves. Maybe nobody supports all the changes, but enough people winking at each change has brought it down. Since America seems to follow the British lead, I suspect your Constitution (unwritten?) has taken the same downward course.

My daughter, in her 30's, has been drinking fluoridated water all of her life. She has had cavities. My sister, in her 70's, drank unfluoridated water most of her life and I don't think she ever had a cavity. I've been told natural tooth hardness can vary. Some are more susceptible to cavities than others.

I suggest you give up smoking. Maybe you'll live to get a cavity.

BTW, you just made the cut-off. I never trust anyone under 30.

Rick
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Hi Phreedom, thanks for your comment.

Just so you know, I don't support forced medication on principle but do think that water fluoridation has positive effects overall.
Although there is plenty of science to back it up, I mostly feel this way based on my own personal experiences which are far too anecdotal to have used in the debate.

I live and have grown up in one of the few areas in England where the water supply is fluoridated (no I'm not American and sadly not that young either) and despite shameful periods of absolute dental neglect in my youth, I still have a full set of healthy teeth and have never needed a filling. Sadly fluoride doesn't reduce heavy staining caused by smoking.

Also the drug which is prescribed to hyper-active kids is called Ritalin and while I think it probably helps a lot of kids, I do worry that it is being over-prescribed.
Posted by PhreedomPhan 7 years ago
PhreedomPhan
Unless support for flouridation is just being advanced for debating purpose and not actually believed, I think it is a sad commentary on the conditioning of young Americans today to accept any dictate from government. From what source did the government derive the right to mass prescribe medication to the people? Once this "right" is accepted, how long before being "improperly sedated" becomes a criminal offense? Heck, we already have the sedation with Rydaline (spelling?) in the schools.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 7 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
I don't think I want to debate it again, at least for a while...I was just feeling frustrated. (in case anyone was waiting for it to come up on the board). If anyone has a burning desire to debate it I probably would though.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 7 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
Thanks to my opponent and the readers. I do not feel like I did justice to the PRO side of this debate though, the word limit basically limited me from saying what I really would have liked to have talked about. Also points 3 and 4 I was not even really interested in, but I felt the need to waste words on those to defend them (since I brought them up), if I had to do this over again I would drop points 3 and 4. I also realize I am to blame for these things, unfortunately. I would have like to have touched more on the "topical" use vs. the "ingested" more... I definitely also wanted to expose the sinister beginnings of how fluoride came in to favor. And I want to explore and learn more about the poisonous nature of the different fluorides (as there are many different types I believe). My opponent did a great job and I applaud him, I think he is a great debater. I am not sure if he would be up for another debate on the same subject or not, but I am thinking I want to do a max word, max time limit debate on this topic again to help me sort of get those things off my mind that I didn't get to talk about...mongoose, ya I realized that after I hit "post" but there are no takebacks and I didn't word that part correctly..I was kind of seeking for a quicker/easier debate, but this didn't really leave me feeling very satisfied with my performance.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"It doesn't matter if fluoride does help prevent tooth decay, because the whole issue of this debate is about it's poisonous nature"

No it isn't...
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Hi Roy, thanks for your comment and vote.

Just so you know, I found it difficult to find any reputable scientific evidence about over consumption, but I did post one piece of counter-evidence in the last round: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This study compared negligibly fluoridated areas with optimally fluoridated areas and found that the only excessive intake was in a negligibly fluoridated area where "The major component of fluoride ingested by children ... came from fluoridated dentifrice." This proves that fluoridated water is not a cause of over-consumption.

I don't think statistics without scientific reference that come from obviously biased sites are good sources.

Also, as my opponent did not make his main argument around too much fluoride in the food supply, neither did I.

Thanks.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I was hoping the debate would center on whether or not there was too much fluoride in the food supply. Pro presented evidence that there was, and con's only rebuttal was that he didn't trust Pro's source. That's a very weak response. I wonder about Pro's source as well, but a good rebuttal would offer counter-evidence, not just doubt. Pro never suggested that too much fluoride could come from just drinking water, he claimed it was in the food supply.

The idea the fluoride is toxic is just bogus. Many necessary things are toxic in overdose. Water is not toxic. Certainly a person can die from too much water, but the death is not from toxicity. It's like claiming that drowning is dead from toxicity.

I don't think Con adequately refuted the overdose-in-the-food-supply argument. I still doubt that there really is an overdose problem, but Pro's evidence stands. Pro's first four arguments failed, but it only takes one valid one to affirm the resolution, so I give the nod to Pro.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Thanks for the comment Klep, I made similar points about water overdose in the debate.

I don't think being a pharmacy student makes you biased, I think it makes you an expert on the subject, feel free to vote if you want.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
In response to Pro's final round:

I am a pharmacy student and we deal with drugs. The first thing they taught us was indeed that *everything* is a poison, it only matters what dose. PRO said that overdose of flouride leads to actual destructive side effects.

Let me assure you that the side effects of overdosing on water can be just as bad. Nausea, vomiting, headache, fatigue, convulsions, coma, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, paralysis, kidney failure, respiratory failure, death.

3mg/kg is when symptoms **start to appear**, and Fluoride concentration is about 2mg/Liter

Meaning, you can only contract Fluoride symptoms by consuming more liters of water per day than the number of kilograms you weigh. If you weigh 110 pounds, you must then consume 50 Liters of water just to get any symptoms whatsoever.

Since no one drinks anywhere NEAR 50 liters of water a day, this is simply not an issue.

I'm not voting in this debate because I'd be biased.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
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 heart_of_the_matter 7 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
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 armorshell 7 years ago
armorshell
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
heart_of_the_matterfeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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