MTN Dew Causes Autism
Debate Rounds (5)
Kids everyday are poisoning themselves with this Bushenizing potion. THis is clearly a plot to overthrow the world engineered by the New World Order and Adolf J osama. This brew of autism infects millions of kids. Autism is not apparent in all of the victims, but it is there and it will destroy out society. Stop consuming this satanic product of dirty corporations at this instant! wake up America!
First, let's go to the most immediately obvious source of information - the Mountain Dew ingredient label. Now, I'm no mountain dew drinker - far too much caffeine and sugar for me! - but that's okay! Never fear, the internet is here with a full list of the ingredients in a bottle of mountain dew :
"CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVOR, SODIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVES FRESHNESS), CAFFEINE, SODIUM CITRATE, ERYTHORBIC ACID (PRESERVES FRESHNESS), GUM ARABIC, CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA (TO PROTECT FLAVOR), BROMINATED VEGETABLE OIL, YELLOW 5 "
Oh, and for the record, these guys are required by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to put every ingredient down here . Trust me, the FDA is decently strict.
Anyways, I don't really see any "extra chromosomes" in there as their "secret ingredient". If you do, I invite you to show me some conclusive evidence regarding this matter. In case it's not clear what these ingredients are, I've re-written them below in common terms to make it more obvious what these substances are:
"Carbonated water, syrup, orange juice, citric acid, flavoring, a preservative, caffeine, a flavoring/preservative, a naturally-derived preservative, a stabilizer (to prevent unwanted reactions between ingredients), another preservative, a thing to make the ingredients stop separationg, and a food dye" 
I still don't see any "extra chromosomes" in there. The chemical you'd be looking for is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA for short. Even if there were "extra chromosomes" in mountain dew (somehow concealed from the FDA?), it wouldn't make a difference - your cells don't really absorb just any DNA they find lying around. If they did though, even THEN it probably still wouldn't cause autism! Why? Because we don't understand what causes autism in the first place . You might note that the source I cited says that it's *probably* due to disruptions during the child's development in the womb. Now, I don't know if you have a little bit of insider information that I don't, but I'm fairly sure that mountain dew doesn't have a product available for fetuses yet! And if the mother drinks the mountain dew...? I don't know. Do you? I seriously invite you to show me concrete proof - facts, numbers, statistics, a relevant medical study, for example - to demonstrate a strong, causal link between mountain dew consumption by pregnant women and autism in their children.
Also, one last thing - your source (which I hesitate to give that title). I'd like to point out that the image is a bit low quality - it's quite possible that camera shaking induced the vertical pupil thing in the picture, or that the photo was just doctored. The last time I checked, George W. Bush's eyes were pretty normal looking ! In any case, the picture you provided is in no way relevant to the point you are trying to make - that mountain dew allegedly causes autism. All you have shown is a picture of George Bush with some weird looking eyes. Again, this proves no more about mountain dew causing autism than a picture of George Bush mooning the sun does.
 http://goo.gl... -- sorry for the shortened link, the actual link failed to embed properly due to a weird URL formatting thing. This link is a source for the mountain dew ingredients.
1. "Perhaps the FDA is jut a pawn of Bush and they are lying about the ingredients." Even if the FDA is just a pawn of Bush, they're not the ones that lie about the ingredients - that'd have to be the manufacturers of Mountain Dew. The FDA does not, in fact, place the ingredient labels, they only require they be present, i.e. if you don't have the labels, the FDA makes sure your product doesn't ship. The more pressing (and hilarious) bit about "perhaps the FDA is just a pawn of Bush" is a claim completely unsubstantiated by concrete proof. I invite you to provide concrete evidence regarding this claim to prove to both me and the voters that your claim is true.
2. "Many scientific laws are known as theories because there are things we still don't know." I've never seen this one outside the context of a debate over evolution, but that doesn't mean this argument works here either. In general usage in the majority of society, the word "theory" does indeed conform to what you say. But that's not what a scientific theory actually is. The actual definition of a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." This means that the scientific theories you casually dismiss are actually quite solidly established.
3. "One o the things that has been kept from the general public is how the Bushenism Chromosome can infact [sic] invate our DNA and possibly made autistic. Most of the time it doesn't, but it is the cause of all autism." I find myself saying this a lot, but once again, please provide some substantial evidence for this massive claim. Until you do, your entire claim regarding this is null and void.
4. "MTN does not stand for "mountain" but actually stands for the plan known as "Many To None." I'll say it again, evidence, please! Your... well, frankly, conspiracy theories, are not exempt from the rigorous standards of argumentation we hold on this site. I (and those who vote on this debate, as a matter of fact) am highly interested to see any concrete evidence for your claims. Also, I'd like to point out that the "MTN" does stand for "Mountain" - it's on the can... 
3 "This is the New World Order directive in which they take out the many people in society that do not normally fall for their deception and make them believe the lies." So let me get this straight. The alleged plan you've been talking about plans to take out the world by giving the world autism? First of all, that's not how that works. As I already explained, autism develops *before* birth. Second, and possibly the funnier option, how is autism supposed to help take out people. Someone with autism can easily be just as productive to society as someone without. What's your "New World Order" going to do, force all the newly-autistic people to make eye contact or something?
4. "They will then rise out of their secret underground city they supposedly have under Denr International Airport and take over." I find it amusing that you acknowledge the uncertainness of the plan your are professing exists while you are talking about it. You actually implied some amount of doubt and skepticism when referring to the "secret underground city," practically undermining your entire argument. Also, I think you can probably guess that I'm going to ask for evidence on this one too. No-one is exempt from providing evidence.
That's all I have to say in debunking your arguments. At this point I'd like to remind voters that pro has made many outrageous claims and has so far failed to provide any evidence. Please consider this as evidence of my opponent's credibility (or lack thereof).
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this debate is now dumber for having read it. I award you no concessions, and may the voters have mercy on your soul.
On a more serious note though, I invite you to provide substantial evidence (no, personal anecdotes won't do, let's see some written words - provide a credible source in the form of a link, please!) for even ONE of your absolutely insane points. Until then, any unsubstantiated argument is null and void. i ask the voters to consider this when placing their votes.
http://www.exploringlifesmysteries.com... What is happening to the general public is the Dunning-Kreuger effect. This means that the general public does not believe these conspiracies because they are too misinformed to realize that they are wrong. PepsiCo is evil and is plotting to help the New World order take over the world after WWIII.
I'll cut to the chase; your "source", if it even deserves the title, is worthless. You cited a conspiracy theory website -- it actually has the word "Conspiracy" in the URL! I daresay very nearly everyone reading this debate can agree that this is in no way a credible source - quite the opposite. My point of requesting a source for your claims still stands; until you do such, all of your claims are unsubstantiated and not to be taken seriously.
Now, I must commend you for bringing some some credible piece of academia - the Dunning-Kruger effect - but I'm afraid you've misinterpreted it. The Dunning-Kruger effect (which I'm going to shorten to the "DK effect" for the sake of simplicity) concerns *skills*, not learned facts. The DK effect concerns what happens when someone who is incompetent at a certain skill tries to evaluate their own competence . In layman's terms, the incompetent individual cannot evaluate their own incompetence because they don't have the competence to do so. As a side effect, they also lack the ability to recognize their inability to self-evaluate. . I say again - the DK effect has absolutely nothing to do with learned facts, only skills.
I'd also like to point out that you've gotten away just a little bit from the debate topic! You're supposed to be arguing that mountain dew causes autism, not any of the supposed subplots behind it. Put bluntly, you've gotten carried away with your conspiracy theories, something that I, as your debate opponent, really needn't tell you.
So, just to summarize what's going on here:
* You are claiming that mountain dew causes autism. You have completely failed to provide any evidence for this. Even if the link you provided is somehow valid, it has no bearing on your argument that mountain dew causes autism.
* You have spouted off an unbelievable amount of irrelevant conspiracy theories, so much that I think you've broken the record for conspiracy theory : word ratio. Congratulations.
* Your arguments, if they can be called that, have so far failed to prove the main point -- why you think that mountain dew causes autism -- and furthermore consist almost entirely of fantastically hilarious non-sequiturs.
You have one more chance to prove yourself. Again, I implore you to provide some hardcore, SCIENTIFIC & CREDIBLE evidence for your main claim the mountain dew causes autism. Otherwise, you practically forfeit the debate.
 https://en.wikipedia.org... - explains the Dunning-Kruger effect. Easy to read, credible source. Retrieved on 9/25/2015 (since Wikipedia articles change over time).
Pro, you have never supplied proof that mountain dew causes autism. The most you did is cite a VERY unreliable source on conspiracy theories surrounding a certain airport, which, as you may note, has absolutely nothing to do with mountain dew causing autism. Furthermore, you have failed to provide any evidence of the alleged conspiracy put forth by ex-President George W. Bush and a few (seemingly random) individuals such as Donald Trump, yet you claim that you simply stating that is proof enough. That is false; no-one is exempt from providing solid, hard-core evidence. Your continued assertions of "they are fooling you" and "this is fact", which you've repeated since the beginning of this debate, are completely irrelevant - unless you can provide proof, they are null and void.
You made the statement of "I invite you to prove me wrong." That is a logical fallacy, known as an argument from ignorance. You are making a very large assertion, that mountain dew causes autism. You are the one with the burden of proof here , as you are the one making the claim. I need not prove that mountain dew *doesn't* cause autism, only disprove/negate *your* arguments that it *does*.
I dispute your claim that you have "been to mountain dew [factories]." At this point, as the voters should note, you do NOT have the best of reputations, as you have been making outlandish claims for the entirety of the debate. To be brutally honest, I don't trust your personal experience. I did, however, find another source on a similar topic! The "How It's Made" film crew visited a soda factory, and recorded footage for use in an episode . I don't really see any evidence whatsoever of "extra chromosomes" injected into the mix, nor any siphoning off of materials for injection into Doritos either. Now you may say "sure, but they just didn't show that on film!" Nice try, but if there really was a global conspiracy dedicated to doing what you claim, do you think they would even allow the film crew into the facility?
To conclude my debate argument, I'd like to summarize the debate and make my final arguments:
*Pro has claimed that Mountain Dew, a popular soft drink manufactured by PepsiCo, causes autism. Pro has completely failed to provide any evidence for this claim.
*Pro made numerous outlandish claims ranging from usage of "extra chromosomes" (apparently the "Bushism" chromosome) in Mountain Dew to a "Drath Star" shooting an "Autism Beam". Not only are these arguments completely unrelated to whether Mountain Dew causes autism or not, but they are completely unproven and immensely damage Pro's credibility.
*Pro has attempted to cite very unreliable sources -- in this case, conspiracy theory websites -- that are both irrelevant to the issue at hand and also seriously damage Pro's credibility. I, however, have cited numerous sources to disprove Pro's claims, and have made my best attempt to educate Pro on such things as the burden of proof, the actual ingredients of Mountain Dew, and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
*Pro has critically misunderstood his/her burden of proof, claiming that I have to "prove [him/her] wrong. This is a fallacy; Pro is making the claim and thus has the burden of proof here. As Pro has not met his/her burden of proof, his/her arguments are null and void.
Please consider the above when making your vote.
If you want more information on the burden of proof, I found a fairly decent video on it, although it is not specifically aimed at conspiracy theories: https://www.youtube.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.