The Instigator
Batman2020
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Stop using Splenda

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
yuiru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,558 times Debate No: 26133
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Batman2020

Pro

Do you put Splenda in your coffee? Or use it in your baked goods, instead of regular sugar or other natural alternatives? You may think you are making a better choice, but in fact, you are doing more harm than good. Many foods labeled as "healthier for you," low calories, no/low fat, are typically worse for you than the real thing. Ingredients that are chemically altered and processed are not better for you. Although long-term studies performed on Splenda and their effects on humans have not been performed, willingly ingesting possibly carcinogenic materials is unsafe.

The many problems with Splenda

Splenda, also known as sucralose, is a combination of maltodextrin and dextrose and is 600 times sweeter than regular sugar. Splenda is a synthetic compound discovered in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formation and is similar in chemical composition to DDT. Splenda is found in countless products and advertised as a "safe" alternative to sugar. "The inventors of Splenda admit around fifteen percent (15 percent) of sucralose is absorbed by the body, but they cannot guarantee us (out of this 15 percent) what amount of chlorine stays in the body and what percent flushes out" (Brahmini, 2012). Chlorine is considered a carcinogen. Possible side effects of Splenda include: "gastrointestinal problems (bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea), skin irritations (rash, hives, redness, itching, swelling), wheezing, cough, runny nose, chest pains, palpitations, anxiety, anger, moods swings, depression, and itchy eyes." (Brahmini, 2012)

A 12-week study performed by Duke University on rats determined that Splenda caused pH imbalances in the body, disrupted absorption in the intestinal tract, depletion of good bacteria, swollen livers, kidney calcification and promoted weight gain (Gerson, 2008). No long-term studies have been performed regarding the dangerous effects of Splenda on humans, yet this product continues to be put on the shelves of our grocery stores, advertised and bought by "health conscious" consumers, trying to make healthier decisions.

Au naturale

Our society needs to get away from the common perception that sugar substitutes are safer, healthier options; they are NOT! Agave is an example of a natural sweetener that is not chemically processed. Sugar in the raw form and Stevia are some other examples of natural, healthy sweeteners. Organic honey can also be used to sweeten many things naturally. Just because a product is on the shelf, does not mean it is safe. The Food and Drug Administration has approved many unsafe products for human consumption. NutraSweet is a known neurotoxin that has been proven to cause tumors and had been previously banned in Europe; yet was previously deemed safe for human consumption, like Splenda has been today. The truth is, the long-term consequences of ingesting man-made chemical substitutes are unknown, but it is better to be safe than sorry, and avoid products containing such ingredients at all costs.

Always read labels and question anything that has a long name that you cannot pronounce; more than likely it is a chemical you should steer clear of.

Sources:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com...
Myths and facts about aspartame and sucralose: a critical review Maganti Brahmini*, Tanikonda Keerthi, Birudugadda Priyadarshini, Idpuganti Sudheerbabu Sir C.R. Reddy College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Santhinagar, Eluru-534007 India

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nycc.edu...
Splenda, The Calorie-Free Artificial Sweetener, May Leave Consumers with Something Worse
Than a Bitter Aftertaste. (Total Health, Mar/Apr2009, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p17-17, 1/2p)
http://www.draxe.com...

Gerson Healing Newsletter, Nov2008, Vol. 23 Issue 6, p8-9, 2p (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nycc.edu...)
yuiru

Con

I'll pollute my body if I want and I'll put splenda in my coffee too!

(Your sources were broken, only two of them seemed to work so I didn't get to assess fully)

Your side-effects of splenda have no source and are only referenced as an ancedote in one of your sources

Long-term exposure to splenda has been tested on humans:
There is no indication that you can get adverse side effect from exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The effects of splenda on rats in the study by duke university (mind you was funded by The Sugar Association which is a chief competitor to splenda! ???) have not been observed in humans.

http://www.nytimes.com...


Sucrose is a 1= PRACTICALLY NONTOXIC
Sucrose and Chlorine are "Not classifiable as a human carcinogen."

so you are wrong that chlorine is considered a carcinogen.

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...


My other sources:
http://ezinearticles.com...

More:

http://www.foodnavigator.com...
http://www.gpo.gov...;
http://www.gpo.gov...;


vote me if you want...
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Mother f*cker, he plagiarized this whole argument as well

http://www.naturalnews.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Batman2020yuiruTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the two people below me are cracked. The burden was on the pro to prove that there's a reason to ban Splenda. He makes a decent case for why Splenda is bad for you, but he never links that to why we should ban Splenda. We can't presume the link is there, especially when con is doing a decent to good job refuting the harms presented by the pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Batman2020yuiruTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: from what I saw it looked like con's entire rgument was "Ill do whatever I want with my body" and then spammed sources to discredit the rest of pro's arguments when she could have easily dont it herself. Just because something is unhealthy doesnt mean it necessarily has to be outlawed, but con didnt even bother with that (or any other) argument. args to pro but sources to con.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Batman2020yuiruTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebuttal was mainly trying to discredit sources, but Pro put effort into a case, so I voted like this...